Back in the N-C, Back in the N-C, Back in the N-C-M-R!

Once again, I am coming to live from the National Conference on Media Reform, the whatever the word is for “held every 18 months” conference on media reform by Free Press. Already our the socialist-radical-gay-lesbian-transexual-Wiccans are laying down deep mojo to cause Senator McCain to unexpectedly dance the charleston at the high point of the Republican convention, followed by a full lip-lock with Rush Limbaugh.

But until then, the talk here is of media reform. Well, that and the #@!%! rain and other weather that has screwed up too many flights trying to get here, like mine. Which is why the report on the pre-conference is extremely short. By the time I got here, it was mostly over.

I did get to see some of my favorite folks in the movement however, and give an enormous “Thank You” to Bob McChesney for his incredible work in founding Free Press and devoting five years to creating the organization he believed needed to come into existence.

5 Comments

McChesney’s crew is perhaps the biggest threat to today’s Internet. They lobby ceaselessly for “Network Neutrality,” but what they call “Network Neutrality” is really “Network Neutering.” It would allow bandwidth hogs using P2P — mostly downloading illegal content — to degrade or even cut off users’ access to media. Network Neutering regulation would drive small, independent, and competitive ISPs out of business, leaving a cable/telephone company duopoly that would seriously threaten consumer choice and independent media. And it would kill innovation by dictating one way, and only one way, in which people could connect to the Internet and do business there.

At the conference, Larry Lessig and Ben Scott of Free Press have continued their fearmongering and their spreading of misinformation — mainly, I think, to raise money for their overstaffed and overpaid group of lobbyists. (Washington lawyers demand high pay. Ask Abramoff.) Gotta create a crisis to get the rubes to contribute. And never mind if the result actually harms the public. The lobbyists’ pockets will be well lined, and that’s what really counts, right?

In case you haven’t bothered to look, Free Press has a total of ONE lawyer on staff. He averages something around 80 hours a week and is about to leave to be faculty elsewhere (perhaps because they’ll pay more for less work?). FP has three other people that act as lobbyists, and they make nonprofit salaries — their group takes no money from corporations, corporate foundations, or the government, and most charitable foundations don’t give money to lobbying activities as such gifts are not tax-deductible.

And what are these “small, independent, competitive ISPs” of which you speak? Last I checked, the FCC had stopped requiring unbundling and we’re ALREADY down to a duopoly.

No one at Free Press is saying that bandwidth hogs should be allowed to eat up capacity without restraint. They’re saying that ISPs shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate on the basis of content, application or destination — none of which prohibits ISPs from charging bandwidth hogs more or capping their usage, provided such policies are made clear to consumers.

Ben, your remarks above demonstrate how willing you are to say things that are not true in pursuit of your malicious goals, even when they are obviously and provably false. Tim Wu and Larry Lessig are both lawyers, as is Marvin Ammori (who organized your group’s misleading propaganda session at the “Computers, Freedom, and Privacy” conference a few weeks ago. All of their names are listed PROMINENTLY on your Web site. And they’re all speaking actively for your group, so it’s absurd for you to deny their involvement.

And your claim that Free Press takes no money from corporations or the government is likewise misleading, because your “Free Press Action Fund” — a group which operates a Web site under the name “Save the Internet” rather than under its own name (why?) — does indeed have ties to Google, Vuze, and BitTorrent, Inc. Your lawyers collaborated with theirs in filing petitions with the FCC.

Furthermore, your claims of a “duopoly” are a flat-out lie. There are more than 4,000 independent ISPs such as ourselves — that’s 80 per state! — and we do not depend upon “unbundling” (though many of us still do take advantage of it).

Ben, you’ve blown your credibility above by demonstrating that you’re willing to lie to further your destructive agenda. ISPs do need to prevent abuse of their networks. And, yes, that does mean blocking sources of dangerous content, such as spam and malware, as well as blocking applications that try to exploit the network (e.g. BitTorrent) or otherwise harm it. We as independent ISPs are doing everything we can to HELP consumers and PROMOTE free speech. It’s time for you to stop your destructive and dangerous meddling in a business that you don’t begin to understand.

Ben, your remarks above demonstrate how willing you are to say things that are not true in pursuit of your malicious goals, even when they are obviously and provably false. Tim Wu and Larry Lessig are both lawyers, as is Marvin Ammori (who organized your group’s misleading propaganda session at the “Computers, Freedom, and Privacy” conference a few weeks ago. All of their names are listed PROMINENTLY on your Web site. And they’re all speaking actively for your group, so it’s absurd for you to deny their involvement.

And your claim that Free Press takes no money from corporations or the government is likewise misleading, because your “Free Press Action Fund” — a group which operates a Web site under the name “Save the Internet” rather than under its own name (why?) — does indeed have ties to Google, Vuze, and BitTorrent, Inc. Your lawyers collaborated with theirs in filing petitions with the FCC.

Furthermore, your claims of a “duopoly” are a flat-out lie. There are more than 4,000 independent ISPs such as ourselves — that’s 80 per state! — and we do not depend upon “unbundling” (though many of us still do take advantage of it).

Ben, you’ve blown your credibility above by demonstrating that you’re willing to lie to further your destructive agenda. ISPs do need to prevent abuse of their networks. And, yes, that does mean blocking sources of dangerous content, such as spam and malware, as well as blocking applications that try to exploit the network (e.g. BitTorrent) or otherwise harm it. We as independent ISPs are doing everything we can to HELP consumers and PROMOTE free speech. It’s time for you to stop your destructive and dangerous meddling in a business that you don’t begin to understand.

@mattyglesias In my work, I've seen some evidence that using targeted digital ads to define the issues people are associating with the election can have a significant effect on how those people end up voting.